Reflections on ISTE's Technology Facilitators/ Technology Leaders Standards
Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts in your textbook Specifically on the TF-I.B.1, on being aware and staying abreast of the emerging technologies there was a vital growth for my career. While being in a lab, we implemented a Learning Management System named Destination Learning. Although using a LMS was familiar, it was not so to use it systematically as part of our reading support tools. Designing a method of instruction including dates, time lines and benchmarks for the children demanded a planning. There was a learning curve from learning and assigning lessons but I have had already experienced the lessons before. Personally, sharpening leadership skills by implementing the same system on two different computer labs in the school was a challenge. Perhaps the most challenging part was the roles as a teacher and technologist. There was very little time to observe and assess performance from the children completion of tasks. Therefore, a more in depth assessment of lessons assigned would have been beneficial to complete the plan implementation. Some of the implementation plan of the LMS technology in the school was to determine growth areas and provide practice opportunities strengthen the weak areas. Planning Individual Lesson for those who were struggling was the next step especially to those on higher grades who would get assignments not at their instructional level but lead to more frustration. The learning curve was steep but we had to implement the use of the LMS program and we only had to start. This caused a feeling of frustration among the students who would have the same lesson or a lesson in which would not be according to their level.
One aspect that would have been a good idea was to observe other schools using the LMS and learning the best practices. I still do not understand why administrators do not see the direct benefit of the use of such technology and the impact on standardized tests.
Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments
On Standard TF-II.A.1 The era of assessment for instruction demands for technology assistance to produce data more efficiently. That is why the use of assessments for instruction software such as Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Math, Destination Learning and Headsprout were implemented in our classrooms in a regular basis. Teachers were responsible on integrating the tools during class time. There was no doubt on me that teacher would first this see as “one more thing to do”. In fact, integration did not happen in the classroom. We had to use the computer lab to deliver this instruction while in the classroom “traditional” education was happening. There were opportunities to develop a more aggressive approach into technology implementation but administration had already a plan and relied on their best teachers with their traditional methods to deliver the expected results. When determining a system of teaching specially integrating technology there has to be a lot more of modeling technology integration using resources that reflect content standards. One big challenge was the lack of computer skills of teacher who would do only the minimum to comply and sometimes they rely on the technologist on determining the lessons. Being stronger about suggesting teachers on modeling a lesson with technology integration would have been the best approach at that moment, but given the circumstances and that administration would continue their “traditional” education methods prevented teachers to become even more computer literate. School administration had initially a shy approach toward opening the doors to new ways of teaching but as the testing windows approached, a more conservative approach was taken from the same administrators deciding then to continue with the “traditional” paper and pencil method of teaching.
Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts in your textbook
Specifically on the TF-I.B.1, on being aware and staying abreast of the emerging technologies there was a vital growth for my career. While being in a lab, we implemented a Learning Management System named Destination Learning. Although using a LMS was familiar, it was not so to use it systematically as part of our reading support tools. Designing a method of instruction including dates, time lines and benchmarks for the children demanded a planning. There was a learning curve from learning and assigning lessons but I have had already experienced the lessons before. Personally, sharpening leadership skills by implementing the same system on two different computer labs in the school was a challenge.
Perhaps the most challenging part was the roles as a teacher and technologist. There was very little time to observe and assess performance from the children completion of tasks. Therefore, a more in depth assessment of lessons assigned would have been beneficial to complete the plan implementation. Some of the implementation plan of the LMS technology in the school was to determine growth areas and provide practice opportunities strengthen the weak areas. Planning Individual Lesson for those who were struggling was the next step especially to those on higher grades who would get assignments not at their instructional level but lead to more frustration. The learning curve was steep but we had to implement the use of the LMS program and we only had to start. This caused a feeling of frustration among the students who would have the same lesson or a lesson in which would not be according to their level.
One aspect that would have been a good idea was to observe other schools using the LMS and learning the best practices. I still do not understand why administrators do not see the direct benefit of the use of such technology and the impact on standardized tests.
Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments
On Standard TF-II.A.1 The era of assessment for instruction demands for technology assistance to produce data more efficiently. That is why the use of assessments for instruction software such as Accelerated Reader, Accelerated Math, Destination Learning and Headsprout were implemented in our classrooms in a regular basis.
Teachers were responsible on integrating the tools during class time. There was no doubt on me that teacher would first this see as “one more thing to do”. In fact, integration did not happen in the classroom. We had to use the computer lab to deliver this instruction while in the classroom “traditional” education was happening.
There were opportunities to develop a more aggressive approach into technology implementation but administration had already a plan and relied on their best teachers with their traditional methods to deliver the expected results.
When determining a system of teaching specially integrating technology there has to be a lot more of modeling technology integration using resources that reflect content standards. One big challenge was the lack of computer skills of teacher who would do only the minimum to comply and sometimes they rely on the technologist on determining the lessons.
Being stronger about suggesting teachers on modeling a lesson with technology integration would have been the best approach at that moment, but given the circumstances and that administration would continue their “traditional” education methods prevented teachers to become even more computer literate.
School administration had initially a shy approach toward opening the doors to new ways of teaching but as the testing windows approached, a more conservative approach was taken from the same administrators deciding then to continue with the “traditional” paper and pencil method of teaching.